People v. Natoli
| Decision Date | 11 March 1982 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Peter NATOLI and Roy Erickson. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
An indictment has been filed against the defendant Peter Natoli, charging him with the Class E felonies of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law 155.30) and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree (Penal Law 165.45) and the Class A misdemeanor of unauthorized use of a vehicle (Penal Law 165.05). Defendant Natoli now moves to dismiss said indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50(5)(c), 210.20(1)(c) and 210.35(4) and (5) on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to testify before the grand jury by virtue of the District Attorney's partial submission to the grand jury of the charges contained in the felony complaint. Additionally, the defendant moves for an order denying the Assistant District Attorney's application, pursuant to CPL 240.40(2)(v), to have the defendant provide blood samples to be used by the prosecution.
As to the first branch of defendant's motion, the relevant facts are as follows: The defendant was arrested on October 15, 1981 and was arraigned on a felony complaint. This complaint charged the defendant with the crimes for which he is indicted hereunder, in addition to the crime of criminally negligent homicide. Pursuant to CPL 190.50(5)(a), the defendant was informed that the charges against him were going to be submitted to the grand jury. Aware of his statutory right to testify, he elected not to appear as a witness. After the instant indictment had been handed up, the defendant learned for the first time that the District Attorney had not submitted homicide charges to the grand jury.
The defendant now claims that his failure to know the precise charges which were submitted to the grand jury denied him the effective assistance of counsel in determining the crucial question of whether or not to testify. The defendant's position is that the felony complaint represents the only notice he was given as to the charges against him and, this being so, it was patently unfair to be unaware that the crime of criminally negligent homicide was not to be presented to the grand jury. 1 The defendant implies that had he known this fact, he may have acted in a different fashion.
The issue presented is whether or not the felony complaint was sufficient to fully and accurately notify the defendant of the charges being presented before the grand jury. We hold that in this case the felony complaint was sufficient.
Preliminarily, CPL 190.50(5)(a) reads, in part, as follows
The few cases interpreting 190.50(5)(a) hold that the District Attorney's papers must at least give the defendant some idea of the "nature and scope of the grand jury's inquiry" so as to enable him to appear meaningfully as a witness and, if necessary, secure the effective aid of counsel (People v. Martinez, 111 Misc.2d 67, 443 N.Y.S.2d 576 People v. Root, 87 Misc.2d 482, 384 N.Y.S.2d 951 ).
We hold that the felony complaint filed herein was sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature and scope of the inquiry. The prosecutor's submission to the grand jury of some--but not all--of those charges listed in the felony complaint does not warrant this indictment's dismissal. The defendant was on notice at all times of the seriousness of the charges before him. However, an opposite result would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Russo
...a felony complaint would have revealed the specific description of the computer software sought by the defendants. People v. Natoli, 112 Misc.2d 1069, 448 N.Y.S.2d 124. Furthermore, there is no provision for discovery under Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law upon a felony complaint. ......
-
Ajax, Inc., Application of
...as to the nature and scope of the grand jury inquiry prejudiced his right to appear as a grand jury witness. Cf. People v. Natoli, 112 Misc.2d 1069, 448 N.Y.S.2d 124. However, unlike the instant case, in both Suarez and Natoli, a felony complaint had been filed prior to the indictment of th......
-
People v. Shepherd
...test such property. CPL 240.20; People v. White, 40 N.Y.2d 797, 390 N.Y.S.2d 405, 358 N.E.2d 1031 (1976); People v. Natoli, 112 Misc.2d 1069, 448 N.Y.S.2d 124 (1982). To compel a defendant whose breath was analyzed while in police custody, by a machine over which he had no control, to face ......
-
People v. Hall
..."some idea" about the nature and scope of the Grand Jury's inquiry (People v. Diaz, 144 Misc.2d 766, 545 N.Y.S.2d 516; People v. Natoli, 112 Misc.2d 1069, 448 N.Y.S.2d 124; People v. Martinez, 111 Misc.2d 67, 443 N.Y.S.2d 576). This will presumably aid him in making an informed decision as ......